My name is Steve Suraci.  I too am running for election for the Board of
Directors of OpenMPE.  I would offer the following responses to Mr. Burke’s
challenge (Sorry for the length!):

I apologize in advance to John for being the second guy in… I afforded
myself the luxury of addressing his responses in mine.  Heck, he got to
create the questions.  In the good natured line of politics, I would expect
nothing more then rebuttal!

> 1. Retiring Board member Ken Sletten's minority report of 12/21/03:
> (http://raven.utc.edu/cgi-bin/WA.EXE?A2=ind0312&L=openmpe&F=&S>=&P=2455 )
> and the Board's action censoring him for going public.

I too have a great deal of respect for Mr. Sletten, as well as, all the
other members who have given their time to serve on the OpenMPE Board of
Directors.  Jon Backus deserves a great deal of credit for initially taking
action back in 2001 and bringing the concept of an “OpenMPE” to the
masses.

I have been a member of OpenMPE since the very beginning.  I followed along
from the outside, like all other regular members have.  Like it or not, the
board we elected has negotiated our collective future with HP on our
behalf.  I too have been very frustrated with the lack of progress in these
negotiations and the lack of information being disseminated by the board to
its members.

But that is the extent of my agreeing with Mr. Burke.  At this point in the
negotiation process we are at the mercy of HP.  The harsh reality of our
situation is that HP is under no obligation whatsoever to negotiate with
OpenMPE.  The sheer fact that HP has recognized this group as the voice of
the MPE community is a credit to the individuals that have served it.
Please don’t take this as a pro-HP stance.  Anyone who has taken the time
to listen to me rant about HP in the past has certainly gotten a very
different understanding!

The fact is that Mr. Sletten knowingly signed an agreement that was
accepted by the organization that he was supposed to represent.  He let his
individual frustration come into conflict with his obligation to the
community and violated a covenant of his agreement.  This agreement was
signed by the board to give HP the security blanket they needed to open
negotiation with OpenMPE.  Mr. Sletten took it upon himself to violate this
covenant.  While initially this may have brought cheers from certain
individuals I am very concerned that it may have a much deeper and lasting
effect on OpenMPE’s viability.  It would be very unfortunate if, as a
direct result of Mr. Sletten’s impropriety, HP chooses to walk away from
the bargaining table.

I believe that HP has been very slow to respond.  They have made promises
and not kept them.  I believe they are carefully contemplating every single
move that they make.  Each and every decision is based on nothing less than
the direct impact it will have on their profit and loss statements.

Let’s agree that the board is caught between its commitment to HP and its
need to communicate to its membership.  Let’s agree that, to date, we are
not satisfied by the way HP has handled these negotiations.  Let’s agree
that a board members signature on a non-disclosure agreement is a necessary
element of these discussions.  Let’s also agree that the board needs some
new members that are willing to dedicate the necessary time to the
organization.  And finally, let’s agree that these individuals need to
posses a business approach necessary to bring the negotiation of their
objectives with a very difficult partner to fruition.

> 2. HP's failure to meet its own privately communicated plan
> to "provide a communication timeline to the OpenMPE Board by
> January 31, 2004" as indicated in the Mike Paivenen letter to
> the OpenMPE Board dated 10/31/03.

I agree a realistic timeline needs to be set and communication of which
needs to flow through to the entire membership of OpenMPE.  Any timeline
that is set forth by HP needs to be understood for what it is.  The
timeline is their best guess today as to how the future will play out.  In
the course of their business they are going to have to adjust for
uncertainties.  HP is notorious for setting dates and moving them.  This is
an established fact that we must live with!

OpenMPE’s time will come for those who wait.  There is no doubt in my mind
that HP will let the product go on completely unmanaged.  The fact remains
that the threat of litigation will eventually outweigh the profitability of
the product.  Then OpenMPE will be in the driver’s seat!  HP will need to
hand of the product to just such an organization to avoid the inevitable
litigation.

> 3. HP's failure to make good on one of its few public
> promises related to OpenMPE, made in this forum on 2/10/04 to
> "provide an update to the entire e3000 community, which
> should happen by the end of the month".

These are the types of issues we as a community should be taking HP to task
on.  They made a commitment in a public forum and did not live up to it.
It is another prime example of HP’s commitment to its base!

The type of press that the Computerworld article represents is great.
Reading into this article we are further able to understand HP motives.
The true HP is shinning through and I can not imagine Mr. Wilde likes what
he sees.  The article is a perfect instrument.  It hits HP right where it
hurts…and it is delivered to a great number of HP product users.   Although
they may not all own the product we love so dearly, they do own HP products!

On the other hand I do not believe it would be appropriate for Birket
Foster or any other board member to have made a statement for the article.
I would imagine there is a great deal of damage control being managed by
the board regarding Mr. Sletten’s comments.  To make a comment in that
forum would only further serve to alienate them, and thus us, from HP.  We
as a community can make all the jabs we want individually.  The board needs
to be very conservative and work in our collective best interest.

> 4. HP's comments (Dave Wilde) as reported in the "Users Lobby
> for MPE Support" article appearing in the March 22 issue of
> Computerworld:
> http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/story/0,10801,9
> 1451,00.html

It’s no secret that we all run our business with the P&L in mind.  If we
did not we would not be in business.  I can imagine that Mr. Wilde regrets
the comment, but truly is there anything else we would have expected him to
say.  I believe the comment may actually be a semblance of good news.  It
tells us that HP does have a plan.  They may be serving their own needs
first and then those of their platinum partners but it is still a plan.  I
read into it that when they have finally exhausted their own objectives
they will address ours!

Let me also state that I am a firm believer that David Wilde is one of the
true MPE good guys.  I know him to be a very knowledgeable and concerned
individual.  He has been given the very unenviable task of winding down the
life of a product that has enjoyed many, many years of success.  He
personally is wedged between corporate objectives and his own passion for
the user community.  I would ask you all to consider whether we shoot the
messenger on burn the message?”

> 5. Your position on the past relationship between OpenMPE and
> HP and, if you think it can be improved, how you see the
> relationship going forward.

I tend to disagree with Mr. Burke’s response.  As an MPE community member,
I would indeed like to have seen this process move along at a more rapid
pace.  I also know HP’s history and can appreciate the incredible obstacles
both internally and externally that need to be overcome.   Mr. Burke states
that the board is the “little beggar child going around to the back door,
hat in hand, hoping for some leftovers”.  In the sense that HP holds the
destiny that we wish to control I think this is very much true.  On the
other hand, the board recognized that they are negotiating from a very
underhanded position long ago, and continues to believe that persistence
will pay off in the long run.

It is imperative that all board members and the community at large
understand that this negotiation is a process.  The longer it takes to
reach fruition the better the position of this organization.  As HP
customers migrate from the platform it will make less and less business
sense for them to remain in the space.  At some point, the remaining base
will begin to present HP with a very big liability.  The treat of legal
recourse, whether founded or not, will come into play.  When this happens
HP will help OpenMPE meet every one of their objectives.

> 6. The key issues facing OpenMPE in the next 12 months.

I think the number one job of OpenMPE right now is to regain the trust of
HP.  Then we must carry out a grass-roots campaign of our own to build our
membership.  Every MPE customer that is on the platform at the end of 2004
has to be a member.  Then and only then can we begin to turn the tables on
HP.  The reinforcement of the voice of the board has got to come from its
membership.  If it does, HP will have no choice but to hear it!

Key Issues:

1- Damage Control: We need to find a way to gain HP’s respect and keep them
at the bargaining table.

2- Membership: We need to build a significant amount of interest.  A small
vocal minority will not get the job done.  A large well organized community
will.

3- Accountability: How can we hold HP accountable if we are not?  The non-
disclosure agreement is not going away but if we continue to violate it the
organization might.

4- Commitment: Our elected board needs to be committed to working toward
the best interest of the entire community.  They need to be willing to make
the time to be involved.

5- Leadership:  The board needs a clear and objective leader.  No
disrespect to Mr. Foster but, in light of Mr. Wilde’s comments, I believe
he may now have a very big conflict of interest.


I am more passionate then most when it comes to MPE.  I have built my
business on this platform and continue to stake its longevity in the fact
the OpenMPE will attain its objectives.  The OpenMPE movement will die only
if we give up doing best what they have done to date.  HP is not going to
be accountable to us unless we are accountable as an organization first.
We have known all along that they are profit driven.  Let’s live with the
facts until the reality changes.  If our board works hard for us their
persistence will be our reward in the end.

If elected to the board I will serve in the best interest of the MPE
community at large.  I will dedicate the time needed to help OpenMPE meet
each and every one of our objectives.